School shooting in Finland

Is there was ANY social group in history that was self-sufficient and not obtain some goods through trade with others? But is it enough to call such group multicultural?

Even more, people are taking the whole of a group's history and assuming that since in the last years of its life, it traded extensively, that was the secret to its success. Amy Chua makes the same mistake in her new book.

The Greeks were healthiest, as Plato observed, before they began overseas trade. And the Hyperboreans, who did they trade with?

I happen to live in a country where you would probably go your entire life without ever seeing a real gun, let alone hold, shoot or own any. Probably why me and the people I know cannot comprehend American culture.

What about firearm ownership exactly do you find so incomprehensible? Virtually everyone I know owns a firearm - some own many. We hunt, shoot competitively, recreationally, some are collectors. None are murderers or criminals. Rural and semi-rural (ie. largely-to entirely white)America is overhwelmingly where most of the firearms are actually owned and possessed and are almost statistically devoid of so-called "gun-crime" and are every bit is "safe" as any non-gun owning nation.

America's crime/violence issues are entirely the result of our failed urban pestholes and typical pluralistic social decay. They may indeed employ the firearm in their shenanigans...but that is simply a tool of their ignoble trade.

America's crime/violence issues are entirely the result of our failed urban pestholes and typical pluralistic social decay. They may indeed employ the firearm in their shenanigans...but that is simply a tool of their ignoble trade.

Most crimes are committed with stolen guns, and most violent crimes don't involve guns.

Facts are helpful.

I believe if we have "freedom," we have the freedom to have weapons -- to defend ourselves against the "freedom" of others to rob, rape, beat, mangle, maim and torture.

It's also useful to know that most American crime is committed by minorities. I attribute this to multiculturalism failing, not some inherent deficiency of minorities, esp. since there are a number of minority folk I'm quite fond of. But they're different, and even as I respect that, I realize it makes for an unstable society.

What about firearm ownership exactly do you find so incomprehensible? Virtually everyone I know owns a firearm - some own many. We hunt, shoot competitively, recreationally, some are collectors. None are murderers or criminals. Rural and semi-rural (ie. largely-to entirely white)America is overhwelmingly where most of the firearms are actually owned and possessed and are almost statistically devoid of so-called "gun-crime" and are every bit is "safe" as any non-gun owning nation.

America's crime/violence issues are entirely the result of our failed urban pestholes and typical pluralistic social decay. They may indeed employ the firearm in their shenanigans...but that is simply a tool of their ignoble trade.

Well in New Zealand no one owns guns, even the police do not carry any kind of firearm on them and the regular police force only have access to handguns and single firing rifles when they have to be taken from the station. When no one threatens you with a gun a gun is not required to defend yourself. I cannot even recollect the last murder in New Zealand let alone the last murder with a firearm.

This reason I cant comprehend gun ownership to the extent of the Americans is because America is such an incredibly different nation. Me saying I cant understand gun ownership in America is like saying I cant understand why Muslims periodically starve themselves and sacrifice their best animals. The cultural differences are to great. Everyone I know who has traveled to the states often remark on how incredibly processed all their food is. And how expensive fresh meat and vegetables are. They always remark on how big meals are when going to restaurants and how many Macdonald's there are. America and New Zealand (which can to extents be compared with England) may be both industrial and western nations, but your culture is so different from mine that there will be many things about you that I wont understand until I live in the states.

After all im sure you don't understand the fact no one have firearms here and the hunting/sporting aspect of it is in an extreme minority.

Geography is not my strong suit, but the USA as I recall is a lot larger than New Zealand. It's a different environment, and one with much more crime even without guns. We also don't trust our government because unlike New Zealand, we tend to play a large role in international politics.

For example the USA being a nuclear free zone would rapidly lead to Americans speaking Russian.

You guys don't understand the point of firearms. Firearms are allowed so that if the government ever betrayed the people or became oppressive the people could revolt and replace the government with a better one. The government would always serve the people because the people would overthrow it if it didn't. Well, that was the original idea.

Geography is not my strong suit, but the USA as I recall is a lot larger than New Zealand. It's a different environment, and one with much more crime even without guns. We also don't trust our government because unlike New Zealand, we tend to play a large role in international politics.

For example the USA being a nuclear free zone would rapidly lead to Americans speaking Russian.

That is very true. The USA needs to defend itself as a country but does that mean its citizens need such a defense for themselves? This is an actual question rather then a rhetorical one because of my lack of familiarity with American culture.

Obviously its useless making guns illegal for citizens because all it does is prevent people from obtaining them in the first place and leaving them vulnerable to those who do have them. I think this might lead to more deaths making the bill redundant. At least the USA put restrictions on civilians buying fully automatic weapons, which serve absolutely no recreational purposes other then killing people.

You guys don't understand the point of firearms. Firearms are allowed so that if the government ever betrayed the people or became oppressive the people could revolt and replace the government with a better one. The government would always serve the people because the people would overthrow it if it didn't. Well, that was the original idea.

If that were the case then why aren't we rioting in the streets? Firearms are just efficient killing technology. If we ever tried to revolt against our government, they would have more people brandishing more firearms than us. Strong numbers don't stand a chance against strong weapons. That's why I can't go out and buy explosives, fully automatic weapons, etc. Buy the best guns that civilian money can buy and you still don't stand a fucking chance.

At least the USA put restrictions on civilians buying fully automatic weapons, which serve absolutely no recreational purposes other then killing people.

Not entirely true sir. There are some "restrictions" on all firearm purchases and yes, even more stringent ones for select-fire/full-auto firearms. But fully automatic firearms can indeed be owned by American citizens - the real restrictions are at the State level. In other words, in some states one cannot own one at all - but in many, with the proper federal documentation one can. (Statistically, there is virtually no violent crime associated with the use of such weaponry, since the Fed. Firearms Act of 1939)

There are several large, annual recreational events geared toward owners of just these weapons, and any number of smaller competitions and gatherings. I suppose "recreation" is in the eye of the beholder.

I guess "our ways are not your ways"so to speak. I was not actually aware that New Zealand was so devoid of firearms or any enthusiasm for them. Either way, just different ways of viewing the firearm I suppose.

Well I guess those who would go through the trouble to obtain a fully automatic weapon in a state with reasonable restrictions is not very likely to kill another human being, far more likely for them to be a very big gun collector/enthusiast.

Well I guess those who would go through the trouble to obtain a fully automatic weapon in a state with reasonable restrictions is not very likely to kill another human being, far more likely for them to be a very big gun collector/enthusiast.

Using guns for recreational purposes is preposterous. If that is your only reason for buying firearms, why not purchase pistols that shoot pellets? Guns are primarily for defense but the wielder could use it for killing at his own risk.